tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 31, 2014 5:00am-7:01am EDT
it does not answer the question whether this is considered a war crime and whether you're acting for condemnation by the security council. report, we will see what steps we will take. the security council has already asked for a cease-fire. response to the assertion from israel that they were responding to a rocket that a school, androm secondly, does the u.n. have any evidence that hamas is using civilians as shields during their operations? >> well, we received this news this morning.
all this happened at 5:00 this morning. it is of course -- what we are seeing is a vicious circle of violence. you have two eyeglasses to look at this. responding to the possible rocket attack from hamas in the neighborhood of the school and returning fire. the question should always be for anyone involved in such a situation that you should ask ofrself, do we run the risk having large-scale civilian casualties? what did the geneva conventions say? has been of discussion going on and the task forces are aware of that. they are asking people to leave certain areas before the attacks take place. but if you look at the proportions between casualties
on the israeli side and the palestinian side, look at the proportion between military and civilian. you will come to the conclusion that the scale of response is of such violent nature that questions of accountability come up. >> i'm going to take a stab at that question in a different way. law, isternational israel relieved of collective responsibility in a situation like this? >> no country is an exception to living up to the geneva conventions. siege which ise
gone on even a time when the inhabitants have no water and no medicine and under constant bombardment. what are the intentions of egypt and israel for fighting for the inhabitants of gaza? issue for exactly the the people of gaza, that they have been under this relentless blockade where there has been of --evere curtailment the secretary general has said that the situation for the people of gaza is just not sustainable. fore has to be a change their economic status and their welfare. it's just not sustainable. are facing death
from thirst and lack of medicine or access to hospitals. allowing any kind of help for these people? access for the most immediate life-saving surprise right now, but egypt and israel are allowing the passage of supplies -- i've savings applies. in egypt they are allowing the exit of medical cases. some have also exited into point that crossing is being used on a daily basis suppliesin the vital that are required right now. thank you. >> a lot of the target that they say they had notified the israeli forces of their
coordination, including some of the schools that were hit, that the israelis actually knew that there were media companies that were bombed. we come back to the question of accountability, you mentioned some alternatives. can you talk about what options there are? it?you elaborate on what are the options that you ?uys have as the u.n. for now >> it's too early to go into that. it's a question of what the member states of the security council would like us to do on this. mentioned the brief
humanitarian pause that israel that hamased rejected. in the last 24 hours, the leader of the military wing of hamas has said no to the cease-fire until all of their conditions are met, including complete open access through the crossings. we talked about jihad, which is essentially repeating the charter of hamas that calls for the killing of jews in the state of israel. in light of all that, if hamas pause, to even honor any tell me exactly what you expect israel to do. to unilaterally just seep all fire, withdraw the idea and allow the tunnels to continue to remain in place? in that situation, assuming hamas continues to refuse a cease-fire as has been proposed by egypt, etc.
thank you. >> you're asking me to provide the golden formula. what we asked for is an immediate end of the fighting. the problem is that both sides the demands that go beyond urgent situation today. the rocketnds that into israel be destroyed, which has a timeline of a different character. hamas --overnment of the palestinians require that there are indications or guarantees that something would happen on the blockade of jordan. gaza. it is important that we try to absolutely --s absolute urgency to stop the fighting.
>> can you use your microphone, please? >> thank you mr. deputy secretary-general for this briefing. would like to concentrate my question on the schoolchildren. thederstand that this is -- time that schoolchildren .hat schools have been attacked perhaps mr. king can confirm that. said theres just were 249 children dead. now we have heard from the secretary of -- secretary-general on gaza. we have heard from you, and we
have heard from mr. king. when not heard from the organization that is in charge of children, namely unicef. >> absolutely. unicef as you know are on the ,round in gaza right now because there is a division of labor, big program for the children. they're coming out with an additional appeal, not just the physical but psychosocial dimension of support to children. >> did the executive director say anything?
>> first, just some figures, how many schools have been attacked with displaced people in the conflict, and did any u.s. staff die in today's attack, and do you have any update on the attack in terms of whether you know who was responsible for it? we don't have any reports of u.s. staff who have been killed today. this is the fifth school that has been used as a shelter that has been hit. what was the other question?
staffn't have any you in killed as yet in those schools that were hit when they were being used as shelters. we did have u.n. staff injured. one staff member was injured in that school. ondon't have further details on actual accountability that case. >> do you have info on the number of people who have been injured or killed since the beginning of the conflict? i guess you may not have the answer today. >> we will come back to that. it seems like on this immediate end of the fighting, the sticking point is what --
the idea of whether to remain in gaza at all. just on that one point, i want to know what your thinking is. also whether the u.n. and secretary-general should reach out to wreck the to hamas. it seems like at this point, given that speaking with mahmoud abbas may not directly relate to weapons that are being fired, is there any thought of the secretary-general reaching out directly to hamas leadership? what is your thinking on that? thank you. channelse very strong to egypt, which is working very closely with israel, but also very close contact with both turkey and qatar.
the secretary-general has worked extremely intensely with these , and we hopeors that these combined efforts from turkey and qatar, and of course the united states, which has been working very hard on the cease-fire issue. that these attempts would be successful. we hope that both sides will understand that the secretary-general's proposals are still on the table. the security cabinet met yesterday. i made sure that the cease-fire would be there and be considered on the table. we are working very closely with all the other actors. so we don't feel any need to be
in direct contact with hamas. >> we really need to wrap this up. >> you touched on the power plant at the beginning of this press conference. what are the exact circumstances at this point as to what really happened there and why it is off-line? and secondly, what did the u.n. .o about the tunnels themselves you mentioned the discovery of rockets, but what about these toggles, and how do you deal with that problem moving forward. >> on the power plant, the latest reports are that the fuel tanks were hit by missiles. so effectively that it is now shut down. we are not in a position to say definitively, and you have also
asked about one location or the other. when you have fragments of shells or unexploded shells, you than in it much easier other instances. we don't know definitively who hit the power plant. we do know that the plant was and the plant is now shut down. for the u.n. demented terri and organizations working in gaza, our goal is to deliver humanitarian services and the viability of our own installations in terms of their use. the whole question of tunnels and all of that, that is beyond our scope of work he read except to say that any supplies that have come into gaza for you in .se are fully accounted for when it comes to things like cement and so forth, there is a rigorous accountability and monitoring mechanism to ensure
that if supplies come in for you and projects, they are used exclusively for you and projects. un or you in projects -- project. that forbly are aware many years there were underground tunnels from egypt which were bringing in large quantities of objects and supplies. it's all very well documented in the press and other places. so again, there is a big difference between what is under the control of the u.n. and what is outside their control. >> we hear a lot about information sent to the u.n., is the same information sent to the hamas group in order for them to stop shooting rockets from school areas? >> absolutely.
case all parties in the conflict received communication from the u.n. about their responsibilities and to be held accountable to that. each party individually accountable for their own actions in accordance with international standards, not in accordance with the standards of the other party. it is international legal standards that you will be held accountable too. so again, very important that we communicate to all that that is in fact the case, that is the measure against which there actions will be accountable. >> we have to wrap it up. >> is there any indication that israel would allow any kind of a protection force in gaza or the west bank, and secondly, what is next? who is negotiating? someoneetary kerry or from the u.n. working with him
to negotiate up peaceful cease-fire? >> i'm not the one to speculate on whether they would agree to monitors or any protection facility if needed. it's a matter of what will be agreed in the end. what we are asking for at this stage is a very simple thing, stop the fighting. this means stop the bombardment from israel, but it also means stop the rockets going into gaza , stop the attacks via tunnels into israel. to allow for a discussion on the , wheresting cease-fire the larger perspectives have to be taken in.
having assurances that these attacks from gaza do not continue. what i think we should all remember today, this organization is about people in the end. this is what this is all about, we, the people. we have just seen this morning a horrifying example of the price paid. i know people are scared in southern israel. when you get that vicious circle of violence, first of all you get increased suffering. secondly get hatred and mistrust that is there as a poison in and makes a peaceful future less probable. .o we hope for the best
take these two steps. stop this horrible fighting and start talking about the major issues. then of course this goes into the larger issue, the future of palestine with the two state solution. >> thank you very much. washington journal is live on c-span. >> the senate yesterday voted to advance an emergency
spending bill to fund border protection, and detention facility it's. to handle the influx of children entering the country illegally. the bill also includes money for the iron dome missile defense system. this begins with maryland senator barbra mikulski. resideni rise to speak on the pending business before the united states senate. the senate's just achieved cloture on the motion to proceed to the emergency supplemental funding bill, so let me explain to the people who are watching this either in the gallery or on c-span. the senate has creaky rules. these creaky rules were to make sure that we would cool the passions that would be raging in the nation on any given time so that we could duly give
consideration, that debate would be diligent and we wouldn't be gripped by the fire of the moment or the passion of the moment. and i appreciate that. but instead, what these rules now do is they take a lot of time for us to get to the meat of the matter, because what we're debating now is the motion to proceed to a legislation related to and supplementing existing funding to meet new emerging crises. the senate votes on a motion to proceed not only on the bill itself, but should we even go to the bill. so what we're debating now is should we go to the bill on the emergency supplemental funding bill? and you know what, madam president, i want to say yes, yes, vote on the motion to proceed. let's get on with with it. let's have a real debate with real issues. there's 30 hours that have been set aside to debate on whether
we should proceed. i'm here to say let's proceed, let's yield back our time and let's get on the bill. we have a lot of things we need to get done in the next 48 hours. i want to see this emergency supplemental funding bill be debated and voted on. we have three elements in this bill that need come -- that meet compelling need, need for our neighbors in our own country, need for our treasured ally, the state of israel, and also need for a crisis at the border where children literally are marching across central america in search of refugee status. we need to deal with all three of these issues. this bill, madam president, this emergency funding bill, is about neighbor helping neighbor. first of all, it's about our own country. wildfires are raging in the west.
over the last year, 39 states have faced wildfires. right this very minute, eight western states are coping with unbelievable wildfires. some of the largest fires in their history. and what happens? vast amounts of territory are going up in smoke. we're losing towns, businesses, homes. our firefighters are being worn out. our first responders, and they need help. this legislation will provide $615 million to these states facing this horrific arm geton-like emergency. in -- armageddon-like emergency. in addition to that, this legislation includes $225 million to replenish the rockets that are being used by israel, deploying technology
called the iron dome. the iron dome is a missile defense system that is rejecting and destroying the rockets that are being sent into israel by hamas. the following is working, but they are using up the rockets and they need to be replenished. then there is the humanitarian crisis at our border. here we have $2.7 billion to meet the needs of children seeking refuge in order to be able to deal with placing them while we determine their legal status, but also being able to fight the crime of the narcotraffickers and the human traffickers that are creating this surge of the children. this is a total emergency funding for 3.5 -- $3.57 billion. now, why do we call it an emergency? well, it's because under the
law, you can't just say oh, this is an emergency. in order to get emergency funding, you have to meet the criteria of the budget control act of 2011. the need has to be urgent. it has to be temporary. it has to be unforeseen. and it either is to prevent the loss of life or in the interest of our national security. all three of these areas of funding meet this need. now, under emergency funding, it means that there are no offsets. it means that we don't take from another important program being funded by the united states government to meet that need. so in order to meet the needs of iron dome, we don't take from other national defense money. that will replenish that.
when we go to help the wildfires, we don't take from other important areas in agriculture or interior or in other bills. this will help not only meet the need but also not place an additional burden on other communities. now, i'm going to talk about the urgency. this firefighting is really needed now. when you listen to the senators from the western states, when you see the photographs, literally, literally parts of our country are going up in smoke. now, the forest service agency that actually is in charge of dealing with this will run out of money in august. and as i said, last year, these wildfires burned in 39 states. when you look at iron dome, hamas, this violent terrorist organization that actually rejects israel's right to even
exist from their tunnels are showering israel with these rockets, and iron dome, arrowhead and david sling are a missile defense system designed to help them. the short outclose missile defense system is iron dome. it will make sure that we replace the interceptor rockets that are being used to protect them against this showering of rockets. the israeli embassy spoke to my staff yesterday. we have got over 2,000 hamas rockets fired just in the last week, so israel needs to replenish itself. then there is the issue of the surge of unaccompanied children presenting themselves at our border, asking for refugee status. in order to really be able to meet this crisis -- and they're
coming in thousands. 59,000 kids have come this year. we know that the immigration and customs service, if we don't meet this emergency funding, will run out of money in august. border patrol, border patrol will run out of money in early september. now, that doesn't mean that the border patrol agents or the immigration customs enforcement agents will stop working. it means the department of homeland security, 22 agencies, will take money out of existing funds to fund this. so it means that they could take money out of federal emergency management just as we're going into hurricane season, just as we're in high tornado season. we could be taking money out of fema to put it in border patrol unless we do this emergency funding. we've got to do it. health and human services runs out of money in august. they are the ones that when the
children present themselves while their legal status is being determined must be taken care of in a humane way, the american way. we don't treat children in an abusive manner. it means we will feed them, we will clothe them, we will shelter them, we will meet any emergency health needs that they have, and we need to do that while we determine their legal status. my bill, the supplemental i have presented, helps accelerate the determination of their legal status. my legislation and this supplemental spending actually provides more immigration judges, legal representation for the children. that's so that we can quickly determine do they have a right to asylum while we are also taking care of them. we need to be able to do that. but, madam president, i would
hope that others would get the briefings that i have, visit the border the way i did to find this out. the reason we have a crisis at the border is because we have a crisis in central america, and this legislation provides the money to do this. oh, yes, people say, you know, root causes like poverty have been going on for years, senator mikulski. this doesn't only deal with poverty. we want to go -- we want to go and work with the governments of central america to really go after the narcotraffickers, the human traffickers and the coyotes engaged in smuggling. why do we want to do that? madam president, if you ask these children where are the hometowns that you are from, they will give us the names of
little cities and little towns, and if you look at their poverty rate, their poverty rate in these communities have been consistent for a number of years. that's a sad circumstance. but if you look at the crime rate, the murder rate, the recruitment into violent gangs, the recruitment into human trafficking with the threat of death or torture, that's where these kids are coming from. we have got to go after the criminals in central america and not treat these children like they are criminals. we cannot treat children in this country like they are the criminals. go after the real criminals in central america, using our assets, working with the assets in central america to do this. they have programs and they have plans. honduras is a great example of what they are trying to do. they need our help. if you don't want the crisis at our border, deal with the crisis
in central america. and that also deals with our insatiable, unending, vociferous appetite for drugs. the drugs have created the narcoterrorists. once you start selling drugs, you are willing to sell women and children like commodities. and if you are willing to sell women and children like commodities, then that's where the vile, repugnant practice of human trafficking and human smuggling and even human -- a new form of slavery, sexual slavery begins. now, these children are on the march. when we talk to these children, they are terrific children. they are brave. they are gutsy. they don't -- you talk to the boys, they don't want to be parts of gangs. they want to get out, they want to get out, so they start this long march from their home country through mexico to make it to the rio grande and on rafts and swimming and so on,
they make it to our border. you talk to the girls, the girls want to go to school. the girls want to get an education. they don't want to be recruited into these vile, vile circumstances. so these are earnest, hardworking children who want to have safety, who want to have a future, and we want to be able to see do they by interviewing them qualify for refugee status, and if they don't, they will have to go back home, but if they do, they get to stay here. so they deserve the protection under the law. so we need to pass this legislation. this bill is a funding bill. it doesn't include immigration legislation. we say those kinds of things can either be brought up in another way, another method here, but this is a clean funding bill.
when i say clean, it means it has no legislative language on it related to immigration. so, madam president, i hope that we can pass this legislation. now, i've listened to my own constituents and many of them are saying to me, "hey, barb, we're not against these kids." and, in fact, recent polling says 69% of the american people say if they're refugees, we should take care of them and they have a right to determine their legal status. but they -- my constituents, many of them, say, "hey, barb, what about us? what does this mean? you're going to spend more money? what about my schools? when do we get help? my kids need help. they need schools, they need health care." you talk to families now, they're getting ready to go back to school. they can't wait -- many parents can't wait for sales tax-free
day in maryland where you can get your backpack and your school supplies and your little clothes and shoes -- my god, the cost of kids' shoes now are a small fortune. and they'll outgrow them by the time they get to thanksgiving. parents are looking for bargains, for deals to be able to them. they are not hostile but they wonder about them. and i want to say to them, i hear you. i was touched by a very poignant story over the weekend about how we have a food bank at steelworker's hall in baltimore. bethlehem steel closed. it will never, ever, ever come back. the steal workers of -- the steelworkers of america who contributed to united way were always the first in line if a blood bank was necessary. now, many of those who lost their job are using the very food bank that they once donated to. that story was so moving because
we have lost our manufacturing. we've just lost the bill earlier today on bringing jobs back ho home, something i know the gentlelady, the presiding officer's, for. i sure am for it and so on. so i know that american families are hurting. and, yes, they are. but i want to bring out that this cost of this bill, the cost of this bill is the same amount of money as we're going to spend on training the afghan security forces. did you know that? so we're going to spend $4 million -- $4 billion. that's billion like in "barb" -- not million like in "mikulski" -- that's $4 billion to train the afghan security forces. and we don't -- i'm not going to debate the merits of that. but we can spend money all over like that and we can't spend money at our border and also threats to our border because of
narco-terrorism that breeds other vile, repugnant, heinous behavior? i think we've got to get real here. and the reason i want a supplemental that's urgent and meets that criteria is that we don't have to take the money from other important programs that do help america's family in education, in health, in job retraining in order to bring our jobs back home. so, madam president, i really do hope we pass this bill. not spending money won't save money. it means that we'll just take out existing programs and the american people will pay for it doubly. they'll pay for it through -- through inaction, which will ultimately cost more. they'll pay for it because they'll lose the programs that they thought they were going to have access to or there will be
limited availability. we have the chance here now to help our neighbors in our western states. i know wisconsin has been hit by it terribly and we're so sorry for the loss of property and the danger to that community. it will help a treasured ally, israel, which we must, and also we will help our own country. and the way to protect our border is two ways -- fight it in central america and also show what we stand for. the children are applying for refugee status. they should have their day in court and under the law proceed. so, madam president, we're now on this motion to proceed. let's get on with it. let's yield back our time, let's get to the bill, let's get the job done, and i hope that at the end of the day the vote will be "yes." madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.
mr. blunt: madam president, i want to talk principally for the next few minutes about a bill that senator boxer and i have filed this week on israel and talk about what's going on in israel. but on the work that's the bill before us right now, i'm always hesitant to disagree with the chairman of the appropriations committee, my chairman, my good friend, senator mikulski. i just think we're headed in the wrong direction here. providing money and not trying to solve this problem, not sending the right message i think is a mistake. people are leaving these dangerous countries. if they're dangerous to be in, they're also dangerous to travel through. they're dangerous to leave. one of the concerns i've had during this whole debate is how many kids leave their home country and never get to the american border and what happens to those kids. and we've heard stories in briefings that weren't classified about kids that never get here because they get sold into some sort of terrible
situation. even kids who their organs are harvested and sold that way. this cannot be something we need to continue to encourage. in fact, if you do qualify for asylum in the united states, there's a way to do that. that's why we have embassies. that's why we have consulates. surely it's safer for someone in guatemala city to go to the american embassy in guatemala city than it is to leave guatemala city and try to come through their country, through other countries, through mexico to get here. under the control of people who have tried to make the most of the president's announcement that if you get here, you can stay here. that's not the red cross bringing kids here. this is not something altruistic group bringing kids here. these are people who are taking advantage of misinformation in their country about what happens if you get here. and some of these kids don't get here. doing this in this way, money
without policy, acting like somehow it doesn't cost anything if it's an emergency and so we can continue to do everything that the chairman mentioned that needs to be done in the united states but we can also do this because it's a supplemental, it's an emergency, it's more money we borrow from somebody else. life's full of choices and for our government we have choices. there are things that need to be done right now to send a messa message, do not leave your home country. the door is not wide open, no matter what the president's announcement in 2011 led people to believe. the law needs to be changed so that immigrants from all countries coming to our borders are treated just like immigrants from mexico and canada coming to our borders. they have an immediate hearing within seven days or so. almost all of them are told, you have to go back. and once that happens, almost
all of them stop coming. this would be a mistake to do this in this way and i believe this bill never winds up on the president's desk. the house of representatives doesn't share this view, even if a majority of the senate does. we need to send a message to gatguatemala, to el salvador, to every other country that the door is not open. just getting here is not enough. this is not a safe disneyland type ride to the united states of america. this is a very, very dangerous thing for you to try to do and you should not try to do it. and when you get here, it's not going to be successful. again, let me say, if you have a case that you should have asylum in this country, there is a way you do that that's much safer than showing up at the border and we shouldn't encourage just -- we shouldn't encourage the danger that these kids go through. i think the case is very
dramatic on the side that cares for the lives of these kids. we should send the message strongly and now -- do not come the way you're coming now. the kids that get to the border are -- we're concerned about what happens to them as a country because of who we are. we should be equally concerned about the kids that never get to the border because of this false message atlantic age from the county critical begins on c-span 3 and c-span.com.
>> our guest on this week's "q&a." >> she was so beautiful and so smart and also so witty that she became -- she was just always irsistible to men. even in old age, i gave her, her 80th birthday party and a washington columnist was here and they sat together afterwards having coffee and she began to stroke his beard nd i said heavens. he had never met someone at 80 that he wanted to bed. she had this vampy quality about her. > sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> the house has passed a resolution approving a lawsuit
against president obama over alleged abuses of executive power in implementing the affordable care act. no democrats voted for the measure. here's the debate for the vote. it's just over an hour. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss the unwarranted ongoing shift of power in favor of the executive branch. under president obama, the executive branch has increasingly gone beyond the constraints of the constitution . in fact, in a number of instances, the president's actions have gone beyond his article 2 powers to enforce the law and have infringed upon article 1 powers of the congress to write the law. mr. speaker, we're still -- i ask for you to have regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order.
the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are here today because at the beginning of this congress, every member of this body took an oath of office in which we swore to, and i quote, support and defend the constitution of the united states, end of quote. at the beginning of each presidential term, the president takes note to, and i quote, faithfully ex culet the office of the president of the united states -- execute the office of the president of the united states and to the best of their ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, end of quote. while these oaths are slightly different, the object of each oath is the same. the president and members of congress have an obligation to follow and defend the
constitution. the text of the constitution that we have sworn to defend provides separate powers for each branch of the federal government. article 1 puts the power to legislate, that is to write the law, to the hands of congress. article 2 on the other hand requires that the president, quote, take care that the laws are faithfully executed, end of quote. the difference is important. mr. speaker, the house is not n order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask members to take their conversations off the floor and out of the aisles. on the majority side, please take your conversations out of the aisle.
the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. the difference is important. the founders knew that giving one branch the power to write and execute the law would be a direct threat to the liberties of the american people. they separated these powers between the branches in order to ensure that no one person or no one particular person, whether it be president or a body of congress, could trample upon the rights of the people. my fear is that our nation is currently facing the exact threat that the constitution is designed to avoid. branches of government have always attempted to exert their
influence on the other branch. but the president has gone too far. rather than faithfully executing the law as the constitution requires, i believe that the president has selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in other instances and in a few cases unilaterally attempted to change the law altogether. these actions have tilted the power away from the legislature and toward the executive. they have undermined the rule of law, which provides the predictability necessary to govern in a functioning and fair society. by and large, this country is founded upon the rule of law and this tilts that balance. by circumventing congress, the
president's actions have marginalized the role that the american people play in creating the laws that govern them. specifically, the president has waived work requirements for welfare recipients, unilaterally changed immigration laws, released the gitmo five without properly notifying congress, which is the law, and ignored the statutory requirements of the affordable care act. we have chosen to bring this legislation forth today, to sue the president over his selective implementation of the affordable care act, because it is the option most likely to clear the legal hurdles necessary to succeed and to restore the balance between the branches intended by the founders. this administration has effectively rewritten the law without following the constitutional process.
when the executive branch goes beyond the constitution and infringes upon the powers of the legislative branch, it is important that the remaining branch of government play its role in rebalancing this important separation of powers. after all, the constitutional limits on government power are meaningless unless judges engage with the constitution and enforce those limits. my friends in the minority do not seem to believe that judiciary is up to their role in rebalancing the separation of powers. i disagree. yesterday at the rules committee, members of the minority argued that this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of time. they argued that if this litigation were to go forward, that it will lead to countless lawsuits between the branches of government.
what my friends in the minority might fail to tell you, but i will today on the floor, is that they were for suing the president before they were against it. eight years ago, in 2006, some members of the minority, including the ranking member of the rules committee, the gentlewoman from new york, were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by congressional democrats against then sitting george w. bush. that's right. eight years ago my friends across the aisle filed a lawsuit against the president brought by members of one half of the congress. the democratic ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, who was also a plaintiff, argued that he was alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government and by a president who shrugged about the law. after consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation, he said
he had determined that there was one group of people who were injured by the president's lack of respect for checks and balances, the house of representatives. i want to echo one line he argued at the time regarding the separation of powers, and i quote, if a president does not need one house of congress to pass the law, what's next? perhaps this makes sense. mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an editorial from "the huffington post" on april 26, 2006, by the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, titled, "taking the president to court" in which he made a compelling argument why members of the house could in fact have standing to sue the president. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be part of the record. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, the litigation considered think about resolution is a lot different and a lot stronger than litigation filed by my
friends on the other side against a previous president. the majority of these lawsuits were brought by a small group of legislators or individual members. today the house as an institution will vote to authorize the suit which gives this case, i believe, a far better chance in court than previous attempts. my friends in the minority at the rules committee yesterday claimed that this is all about politics. but republican members of this committee repeatedly insisted that we disagree. the issue is not about partisan politics, it is not about republicans and democrats. this lawsuit is about the legislative branch's standing -- branches standing up to the laws that have been passed and signed into law by the legislative and signed by the executive of this great nation. republicans are motivated to stand up for the constitution, the separation of power, and the rule of law.
any person who believes in our system of government should be worried about the president's executive overreach. the president, as well as future presidents, from either party, must not be allowed to ignore the constitution and to circumvent congress. both republicans and democrats have stood up for the legislative branch in the past. in fact, there have been 44 lawsuits filed in the last 75 years in which legislators sought standing in federal court. of the 41 filed by plaintiffs rom a single party, nearly 70% were democrats representing the body. i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an editorial by kimberly straussle from the "wall street journal" dated july 17, 2014, that further explains why the democrats were suing the president before they were against it. and i call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
stand up for congress and to defend our constitution against the executive branch. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the article will be in the record. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, throughout this lawsuit, the united states house of representatives took a critical and crucial step in reining in the president, to defend the constitution, so that it will endure for yet another generation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. slaughter: thank you. mr. speaker, across the country conservative thinkers and legal scholars are discrediting this lawsuit against the president. they're exposing it for what it is, a political stunt timed to peak in november as americans are heading to the polls for the midterm elections. for example, harvard law
professor -- professor and former assistant attorney general under president george w. bush wrote, and i quote, the lawsuit will almost certainly fail and should fail for lack of congressional standing, end quote. even supreme court justice scalia, joined by chief justice roberts and chief justice thomas, wrote that the frase framers of the constitution emphatically rejected a, quote, system in which congress and the executive can pop immediately into court. in their institutional capacity, whenever the president implements a law in a manner that is not to congress' liking, end quote. . andrew c. mccarthy wrote recently that this lawsuit is a, quote, classic case of assuming the polls of meaningful action while in reality doing nothing, end quote. heaven's to betsy, how much
more do we have to hear that this will not work? a recent poll by cnn found that 57% of americans oppose the lawsuit. yes, the american -- majority of the american people recognize it for what it is, political theater. they recognize this lawsuit as not only distraction from the real problems that plague our nation but it is designed to appease radical republicans clamoring for impeachment. the rules committee, which i am ranking member, was the only committee to consider this lawsuit. under regular order of the house, -- under regular order, the house administration committee would have also held hearings and a markup because they are the money committee that handles the house's internal accounts. but they were not given a chance to do so. over the past three weeks, the rules committee heard testimony from constitutional scholars, debated the merits of the lawsuit and offered several
amendments. the minority on other committee offered nearly a dozen amendments aimed at bringing some transparency and accountability to this process, and they were all voted down along party lines. democrats offered an amendment that would have required that this political stunt be funded from the benghazi select committee's budget, another political stunt. after the 14 investigations of benghazi tragedy, they have allocated $3.3 million to continue to chase after a nonexistent scandal. we offered an amendment that would have ensured that any law firms contracted for this lawsuit were not also lobbyists trying to influence us at the same time that they represent us in court, a clear conflict of interest. we even offered an amendment that would have required disclosure of which programs and budgets in the federal budget will be reduced to pay for the lawsuit.
would the fund comes from the veterans' affairs committee, the house armed services committee? we don't know because the majority has refused to tell us. before they vote today, members of this house deserve to know exactly which legislative branch functions will be curtailed to pay for this folly. otherwise, how can we cast an informed vote? we focused our amendments on cost because how important cost it is, it is not, as has been stated here, an imaginary concern. republicans have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in this month alone, passing ver $700 billion, with a b, of unpaid-for tax extenders on this house floor. republicans took $24 billion, b, out of the economy when they shut down the government to deny health care to millions. and according to "cbs news," the majority has wasted over $79 million on the more than 50
votes from the house floor to dismantle, to undermine and repeal the affordable care act. where in the world does it stop? when republicans defended the discriminatory defense of marriage act and employed outside counsel in a similar lawsuit, we believe this will have, it cost the american taxpayers $2.3 million. we learned their lawyers hour, $520 an hour, an at that rate they would have been paid $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek. so what will this lawsuit cost, mr. speaker? that's what we want to know. the minority requested this said a ion and they lawsuit is a, quote, small price to pay, end quote. we could be investing in our
education system, making to easier for our children to go to college, even build some high-speed rail. we are the only country after the war that doesn't have any. addressing climate change. we had a terrible flood in my district next door where they lost sewer systems, water systems. we could be doing so many other things than simply throwing this money away. the idea of fiscal tightness is absolutely decimated in just what i have already said at this time. the money wasted here with nothing for it when the needs are so great and the population cries out for relief. but instead of investing in our country, the majority insists on bringing a lawsuit that if successful will do opposite of everything they have been trying to accomplish since 2010. yes, after years of rallying against the affordable care act, not a one of them would vote for it as it passed the house, voting to derail it, working against it, believing
-- pay attention here. they are suing the president for not implementing it fast enough. if that makes no sense to you, you are not alone. we don't understand it either. not only is this logic upside down and inside out, it's directly against the feelings of members of their own party. a recent poll from the commonwealth fund found that 77% of people were pleased with their new coverage. republicans themselves have a 74% satisfaction rate with the new plans that they bought. now, before us we have a lawsuit that's been ridiculed and railed against by conservative thinkers and progressives alike. it's a deplorable waste to taxpayer funds and goes against everything that republicans have been working for for four years. the republicans i worked with in this congress when i first came here would not even think of this. and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the judiciary committee, chairman goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the rules committee, for his leadership on this issue. without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy. we in the house of representatives who face re-election every two years under the constitution are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. and while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means of which we can successfully avail ourselves. when the president fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the
congress has appropriations and other powers over the president. but none of those powers can be exercised if a senate, controlled by the president's own political party, refuses to exercise them. nor will the exercise of those powers solve the problems at hand because they will not actually require the president to faithfully execute the laws. and of course, the most powerful and most available means of solving the power at hand, in the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence. earlier this year, i joined with representative gowdy to introduce h.r. 4138, the enforce the law act, to put a procedure in place for congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws. but while that legislation
passed the house with bipartisan support, the senate has failed to even consider it. so today we consider a resolution to authorize litigation by the house to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law. although the case law standing may be murky, one thing is absolutely clear. the supreme court has never closed the door to the standing of the house as an institution. as president lincoln said, let reverence for the laws be enforced in courts of justice. it is the court's duty to to uphold reverence for the law and it is the specific duties of the courts to call fouls when the lines of -- fowls when the lines of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the constitution have been breached. a lawsuit by the house of representatives would grant no additional powers over the judicial branch over legislation. indeed, what a statute says or doesn't say would be
ineffective but it would be the appropriate task of the for the courts to determine whether or not whatever a statute says a president can ig or or alter it -- ignore or alter it under the constitution. the stakes are high. the lawsuit will challenge the president's failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the white house. what provisions of obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular and what provisions the president has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal election. how convenient for the president. yet, how devastating to accountability in our republic. imagine the future in this new unconstitutional power of the president if the president is left to stand. presidents today and in the future will be able to treat the entire united states code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. the current president has even
created entirely new categories of businesses to apply his unilaterally imposed exemptions. in that future, if a bill a president signed into law was later to be considered bad policy and potentially harmful to the president's political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more litically opportune time, if at all. they wouldn't have to stand -- candidates wouldn't have to stand on their records. sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to give the young chairman one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it, repeat until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. we should all support this resolution today as it aims to
unite 2/3 of the federal government in delivering a simple message, congress writes the laws and the president enforces them. our own constitutionally required oath to support the constitution of the united states requires no less. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. it is somewhat ironic that the republicans want to sue the president for enforcing -- not enforcing a law that they want to repeal. how ironic. but it is frankly a demonstration of their frustration that they had been unable politically to attain
the objective that they seek. and they therefore repair to the wasting of time by this congress and the wasting of the taxpayers' money on a hypocritical and partisan attack against the president. one that is meant to distract from the pressing issues of the day, like fixing our broken immigration system, raising the minimum wage or restoring emergency unemployment insurance for those seeking jobs. while the majority of americans oppose this lawsuit gimmick, house republicans continue to move ahead with it instead of acting on those policies and other critical legislation which the majority of the american public do support, make it in america jobs bills, export-import bank
re-authorization, terrorism risk insurance, voting rights act amendments, continuing resolutions and appropriation bills. all of these the american people want to see us do, but in polls they show they don't want us to be doing this. they think it's frivolous. they think it is without merit. they think it should not be done. all the bills that i referenced they think ought to be done. how sad it is that we come here and do things the american people thinks are a waste of time while not doing things americans think are very important. none other -- i tell my friend from texas, and he is my friend, none other than justice antonin scalia said that the judiciary traditionally hear cases of political disagreement
between the other two branches. in fact, he said in united states vs. windsor, and i quote, a system in which congress and the executive pop immediately into court in their institutional capacity whenever the president implements a law in a manner that is not to congress' liking. . scalia felt that was not justified. we believe this legislation is not justified. we further believe that the american people do not believe this legislation is justified. we do believe that the base of the republican party that tried to defeat president obama in 2012 voted against him in 2008 and disagreed with him on the issues think this is what is available to them. it is wrong. it is a waste of time.
it is a waste of money. it is a distraction from the important issues so important to our people. this lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the republican base and for some , for some, it doesn't go far enough. under president clinton, republicans' playbook was shut down and then impeach. under president obama said that if the affordable care act were not repealed, not that they wouldn't sue him, they said they would shut down the government if they didn't get their way. they didn't get their way and they shut down the government. could i have one additional minute? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: they threatened to shut down the government and they shut down the government and the american people said
that's not what we want done. again, they come to this floor because they cannot achieve through their political process the ends they seek. they have voted over 50 times to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. they do not want it implemented. now they want to sue the president because he's not implementing it fully and now they are suing and refusing to say that impeachment is off the table. in fact, their newly elected whip, mr. scalise, declined the opportunity to rule out impeachment on four separate occasions last weekend. my friends, instead of wasting time and money on the lawsuit and what might follow, congress ought to do what our constituents sent us here to do, reate jobs, invest in an
economy where all of our people can work hard and make it in america. reject this waste of time. te no on this unjustified, impractical, losing proposition. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we heard revisionist history, but i will answer the question, the answer is years back we did impeach william jefferson clinton because he lied to an f.b.i. agent and lied to a federal grand jury and violated the federal law which was a felony. oh, by the way, that led to impeachment for a felony while in office of a sitting president. in this instance, the president of the united states is not
faithfully executing the laws of the country and that is entirely different process and for the gentleman to suggest that is going to lead to that is simply not true. i will tell you that president clinton violated the federal law as a felony and we believe that our president is not executing the laws and everybody can figure that out. i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, member of homeland security and natural resources committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i remind my colleague from maryland who just spoke that in my hum nl opinion harry reid shut down the government. let me explain to everyone watching at home across america what the separation of powers doctrine means. we study in school and since our president doesn't seem to get it
and needs to be explained again. mr. duncan: our constitution says the legislative branch, this branch, we write the laws. the president executes the laws and the courts settle any dispute. we write the laws and the president executes the laws and the courts settle dispute. our constitution says that the president doesn't get to write his own laws. our founding fathers knew that kings wielded power. they understood that too much power in one group or one person would lead to tyranny. as christian men of the day they understood that man has fallen and that fallen man, once they have a taste of power, they will always go after more. they knew that power crupts and absolute power crupts absolutely. the understanding of fallen man, there was a system of checks and balances and clearly delineated
and separate powers divided among three equal branches of government. we write the laws, the president executes them. should be simple, right? we are here today because the president has failed us in two directions. he failed to execute the laws we have written. he has rewritten the laws on his own and i believe that this is a breach of his oath of office to uphold the laws. so we are gathered here as the first branch, the legislative branch, to seek the judicial branch's help in bringing an out of control executive branch, plain and simple. we are here to bring legal action against the president of the united states to stop him from rewriting the affordable care act. that is a misnoemer. nothing affordable about the affordable care act and the american people know about it and that's a discussion for another day. from the individual mandate to businessman dates to h.h.s. regulations that were struck down by the supreme court to the decision just last week to
exempt the u.s. territories, how many is that, four million people are exempt from obamacare with just the action of the president's pen. time and time and time again we have seen this president rewrite the law. but rewriting obamacare isn't only one of the ways he has abused this power. look at the mess on the southern border, a mess of the president's own making thanks to his own making and the attempt to rewrite the law. last week, i sent the president 21 tweets which laid out the things that he could do to stop this mess at the border that are within the law and his purview and still he continues to operate outside the law and not just the border, it's d ompmmp a and nlrb and back-door cap and trade legislation and war on coal and waters of the united states, regulation after regulation, administrative
action after administrative action and no basis. this administration has chosen repeatedly to try to rewrite the laws without going through the legislative process which our founders set up. get a copy of the constitution and look at the separation of powers. this congress must use every power to restore balance to our government and uphold the rule of law. we voted repeatedly to use this power of the purse to cut off funding for unconstitutional activities within this administration. we have voted repeatedly to overturn bad regulations. we paced the rains act and i co-sponsored other efforts that repair our broken system of checks and balances in order to stop the overreaches of this administration. we must act today and we must continue to act until this administration and the president relent and gets it right. i thoroughly support this bill and take this president to
court. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: i extend the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: i believe we need to take whatever steps are necessary to bring in this administration and hold them accountable to the united states constitution and to the citizens of the united states of america. the founding fathers gave us this recourse to restore the balance and uphold the rule of law. that is why this is so important. and for us to reassert our authority to make the law so he can entors the law. may god continue to bless this body and the men and women that serve this country and may god continue to bless the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i thank the
gentlelady. and members of the house, as the former chairman of the house judiciary committee, i rise in strong opposition to house resolution 676, which would authorize the speaker to file suit against the president of the united states for failing to enforce the affordable care act, which has been attacked more than 51 times unsuccessfully in the house. now, why? why do i oppose this serious, flawed measure? one, the fact that it addresses a nonexistent problem. two, that it violates constitutional requirements and fundamental separation of power principles. and three, that it diverts congress from focusing on truly
critical matters that require prompt legislative responses. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to include in the record a letter received only today signed by eight constitutional law scholars explaining the reasons why a lawsuit filed pursuant to house resolution 676 is likely to fail. without objection. the letters will be part of the record. mr. conyers: h.r. 676 seeks to solve a nonexistent problem because the president has, in fact, fully met his obligations o faithfully execute the laws. allowing flexibility in the implementation of a major new program even where the statute mandates a specific deadline is
neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. indeed, in the case of the affordable care act's employer mandate, the administration acted pursuant to statutory authorization granted to it by the congress. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: i rise today in support of h.res. 676, a resolution to authorize the house of representatives to initiate litigation against the president or any executive branch employee for failure to act in accordance with their duties. specifically, this resolution deal with the president's failure to implement the
employee mandate required by his own signature law, the patient protection and affordable care act. while the scope of the litigation authorizes is narrow, it is symbolic of a much larger problem, the president's continued refusal to execute the congress'ing to usurp constitutional right to legislate. simply because congress chooses not to be the president's rubber stamp does not bestow upon him the power to circumvent the law. conversely when the president says it might be politically perilous, he can't simply choose to ignore it. mr. speaker, this is not about party politics, this is about the proper role of government as defined by our founders. the federal government was intentionally designed with three branches, each with their
own separate powers and the ability to serve as a check and balance on the other two. yet the president, as a former constitutional law professor, refuses to recognize his proper le and unilaterally enacting policies or ignoring the law at will. i took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution as a member of this institution. and i have taken that oath seriously every single day. unfortunately, i believe the president's actions undermine the very same oath that he has twice taken. so i urge my colleagues, join me in this step to uphold the law and protect the balance of power by supporting the resolution. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman
from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise this evening in strong opposition to this resolution that would propose to have the house sue the president of the united states. with only a few hours left before congress adjourns for the august district work period, we have a full plate of responsibilities left unfinished. when i go home, i doubt constituents will be running up to me for congress passing a resolution to sue the president. i know what i will hear. why hasn't the house passed come prepares i have immigration reform? why hasn't congress raised the minimum wage so people who work full-time don't repain in poverty? why haven't we renewed unemployment insurance for 3.5 million americans including veterans and the only answer i will be able to give them is that republican leadership cares
more about scoring political points than they do about helping middle-class families. this is a question of priority. the american people sent us here to face the pressing needs. it should be a given we would use our time to focus on the most important issues. instead, we waste time on suing the president of the united states while failing to address commonsense measures to ensure economic security for every american. not only does this resolution reflect a different set of priorities than the majority of americans, we are wasting millions of taxpayer dollars like the $3 million defending the unconstitutional defense of marriage act and billions of dollars shutting down the government. it is unconscionable when this do-nothing republican congress decided to do something, it is suing the president for doing his job when they refused to do theirs. i have heard too many in the
republican majority raise impeachment. wastedopposition to this resolution and join democrats and address the serious challenges facing our nation. with that, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank my colleague for yielding. i also want to thank the whole house for its work on -- to address the american people's concerns about jobs in our economy. all told we sent the senate now more than 40 jobs bills, almost all of them in a bipartisan way. from the first day of this congress, i said our focus would be on jobs and it has been. but on that first day, you may recall i addressed the house about the importance of our oath of office. i know that the same oath we
all take that makes no mention of party, it makes no mention of faction or agenda. the oath only refers to the constitution and our obligation to defend it. i said that with moments like this in mind, i said that knowing there would be times when we would have to do things we didn't come here to do. we didn't plan to do and things that require us to consider interests greater than our own interests. i have to think this is why on several occasions members of the minority party have taken a similar step. in 2011 some of them filed litigation against the vice president. they took similar steps in 2006, 2002, 2001 and so forth, because this isn't about republicans and democrats. it's about defending the constitution that we swore an
oath to uphold and acting decisively when it may be compromised. no member of this body needs to be reminded what the constitution states about the president's obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our nation. no member needs to be reminded of the bonds of trust that have been frayed or the damage that's already been done to our economy and to our people. are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change? are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our founders have built? think not only about the specific oath you took but think about how you took it, as one body standing together. that's all i'm asking to you do today, to act as one institution, to defend the constitution on behalf of the people that we serve.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on ways and means, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: well, republicans oday are choosing lawsuits over legislating. they're choosing to sue the president rather than pursuing legislation to support american families. and there's no shortage of legislation awaiting action. immigration reform, a bipartisan senate bill held up by the speaker who has just spoken. unemployment insurance, a bipartisan senate bill has never gotten a vote in this house, held up by the speaker.
the employment nondiscrimination bill, the senate bill not brought up here, held up by the speaker. paycheck fairness not brought up. a minimum wage bill not brought up. -- im controversial controversy. highway bill, another patch. the inability of house republicans to face up to the need for a long-term highway bill. and a voting rights reform bill sponsored by a senior republican held up by the speaker of this house and the conference of the republicans. so the republicans in this house are suing the president because they coninjure -- conjure up what the republicans think is the correct implementation of a law they have tried 50 times to destroy. it is the house republicans who
should be sued if that were possible for their lack of responsibilities to the people of this nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman, mr. rice from south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. rice: mr. speaker, my favorite piece of art in this capitol is a picture in the rotunda of our founding fathers gathered together to sign the declaration of independence. a document that they knew when they signed it they were signing their own death warrant. their own death warrant if they were caught and tried for treason. they felt that strongly that they wanted to escape the bonds of a monarch and pursue
freedom. our forefathers fought a revolution against the greatest military power on earth to escape the bonds of a monarchy. at the end of that bloody revolution, the last thing they wanted was another king. they wanted freedom. to protect that precious freedom, they designed a government of, by and for the people based upon a separation of powers. the legislative branch makes the laws. the executive branch enforces the laws. president obama has decided that he is not bound by the separation of powers. he has bragged that if congress will not accept his priorities, he has a pen and a phone and he will make the laws himself. he may have a pen, but the people have the constitution.
left us by our forefathers. our forefathers recognized that one man that both can make the laws and enforce the laws is a king, not a president. thomas jefferson once said that freedom does not disappear all t once but is eroded imperceptively day by day. the prosperity of our great country sprang from our freedom. our form of government set in the constitution by our forefathers has protected that very fragile freedom for 200 years. my friends across the aisle worry about the price of a lawsuit to protect our freedom. our forefathers paid dearly for that freedom. many gave all they had, even
their lives. our freedom is in peril, my friends. we cannot stand by and watch the president shred our constitution. i stand in support of house resolution 676. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this resolution. the constitutional question raised by this measure is whether the house has standing to sue the president over what he is in essence -- over what is in essence a policy difference. standing is a constitutionally defined status and requires the plaintiff, among other things, demonstrate a legally recognized injury. the house would also have to show that there is no other
remedy. on both of these counts, this lawsuit fails. the house cannot speak for the senate, which doesn't agree with its position, and therefore cannot represent the legislative branch. even if it could, neither body has suffered a recognizable injury merely because some members of the congress do not like how the president has interpreted a law passed by a different congress. moreover, this congress has a remedy. if it doesn't like the way the president implemented the affordable care act, it can change the law. that would be a far better approach, one more consistent with our separation of powers, than this expensive and ill-conceived lawsuit. i urge the house to reject this effort and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reservices his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york,
mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you. the speaker does not have a good record on wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits. when the supreme court said the domedome could not be wasted -- they lost in the supreme court. now the speaker wants to waste more of the taxpayers' money on the meritless lawsuit against the president for not, quote, taking care that the law be faithfully executed. what did the president? in implementing the affordable care act, which the republican-led house has voted to repeal 50 times, he postponed one provision by one year. so now they want to waste money to go to court to say the president had no power to postpone this provision for a year although no one opposed president bush when he postponed implementation of a provision of the medicare drug act for a year. it is well settled it is within the discretion of presidents in
implementing a law to postpone implementation of part of it in order to get it done right. but this leads to another absurdity of the case. let's assume the republicans get the house to go into court and somehow overcome the standing question, which they will not, what is the remedy, they seek? by the time they got to court, the provision in question will have been implemented. so they want to waste $5 million of taxpayers' money and say, judge, please let the president already what he implemented. tiles ridiculously. what do we got? we have a congress that passed no highway bill, no unemployment extension bill, no pay for equity for women bill, no action to reduce the burdens of student loans, no action to make sure that women continue to have access to contraceptive services despite the supreme court's hobby lobby decision, no action on all the emergencies that face the american people. we are going to waste money and time on a meritless lawsuit that will go nowhere, simply serve a single function of
diverting attention from all the real problems the house republicans want to continue to ignore. this is not a proper use of the taxpayers' money. more wasted money for political purposes. a shame. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask how much time remains on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has four minutes remaining. the gentlelady from new york has eight minutes remaining. mr. sessions: we'll reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady very much. nd i rise to oppose h.res. 676, which is seeking an unconstitutional right to sue the president for doing a duty and following the law. the underbelly of this resolution would in essence put
fire, fire in the hearts and minds of americans when we find out that this legislation is to undermine the president and any of his officers and employees from doing their job. this is a failed attempt to impeach the president. i'm willing to say that word, because the president has been following the law. the law passed that gives him discretion to interpret the affordable care act, to make it best work for the american people. as has been stated, if you want to change the law, go to the floor of the house. but in actuality, this resolution smacks against the constitution which says there are three equal branches of government. therefore, the executive has a right to perform his duties. i ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a failed attempt of impeachment and it undermines the law that allows the president to do his job. a historical fact that president bush pushed this nation into war and had little
to do with apprehending terrorists. we did not seek an impeachment of president bush because as an executive he had his authority. president obama has the authority. and i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to in essence provide the opportunity for us to do valid things for the american people, improve the minimum wage, paycheck fairness and stop undermining the authority, as indicated by the constitution, that gives equal authority to the three branches of government. we can pass laws. we have the ability to pass laws. and citizens have the right to go into court on their independent standing. the courts have often said that the congress has no standing. the house of representatives has no independent standing, as evidenced by many cases we have already taken to court and determined that congress has no standing. the doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirement derived from a case or controversy provision in article 3 and prudential consideration, which are jew dishally created and can be modified by congress.
that dictates on how you gain standing, and i would say the constitutionally based elements require the plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury, in fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete and particularized. the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely be redressed by the relief requested from the court. let me be very clear, we in congress can make no argument that the president has injured us. we can make no independent argument of that, and so i ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and do not accept a veiled attempt of impeachment when our president is doing his duty and following the law under the constitution of the united states of america. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the
gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: for one minute. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my good friend, the the gentlewoman from new york for yielding. this resolution is a waste of time and money. we are sent to congress to make progress on behalf of the people of this nation. yet house republicans spend all of their time and energy fighting this president. why? republicans need to jump off the bandwagon of political attack and come together to jumstart the economy. while americans are unemployed, they did nothing to put them back to work. when people are losing their homes, they did little to protect them from foreclosure. while hunger and poverty are on the rise in this country, they have hardly mentioned the
disappearing middle class. from the first day in office, the republicans in this house has never supported this president. every olive branch he extended was broken. but today, mr. speaker, they have reached a low, a very low point. this resolution to sue the president just goes a little too far. it is a shame and a disgrace that we are here debating the suing of the president. the american people deserve better. we can do better. we can do much better. i urge each and every one of my colleagues -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. ms. slaughter: i give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. lewis: i urge each and every top oppose lleagues
this insulating resolution. it has no place on the floor. let us get back to work that we were elected to do. thank you. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask members to speak within the allocated time. the gentlelady from new york has 5 1/2 minutes left. time.ssions: i reserve my the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, ranking member of the judiciary committee. mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: i appreciate the time. i find it interesting that this is all about president obama engaging in executive overreach.
look at the statistics. during president obama's first term and compare him to previous -- similar presidents. president bush issued 173 executive orders. president clinton, 200, president reagan 213. president obama, only 147. and during this part of president obama's second term, he has thus far issued only 36 executive orders while president bush during the second term issued 116, clinton, 164. and reagan 168. so i ask you based on the statistics, is that overreach? no, it's underreach. it's underreach. mitch mcconnell said upon president obama's inauguration, the job was to see that this man wasn't re-elected.
now the job seems to be to see that the attack on the president can be such that the republicans take the senate and hopefully set the stage for 2016 for the presidency. this unquestionably is impeachment. it is an attempt to put the president in a situation in a lawsuit that if successful, which i find hard to believe would be the foundation for impeachment. this president has done nothing that is impeachable, nothing that merits this type of action. nothing that merits this type of disrespect. he should be respected as our president and supported and we should work to create jobs, pass an infrastructure bill, pass a minimum wage bill and extend unemployment insurance. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to yield two minutes to the
gentleman from from texas, dr. burgess, member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the chairman for yielding the time. there are plenty of places in the affordable care act where it is full of drafting errors and stuff that wasn't ready for prime time. but you know, mr. speaker, there is no ambiguity over this issue. when the president delayed the institution of the employer mandate on july 2, 2013. he couldn't are have been clearer. let me give you an example, the effective date of the individual mandate as written in law for the individual mandate, the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable apply ending after december 31, 2013. pretty clear, shall apply. straightforward. the effective date for the employer mandate section 1514 of the law, effective date, the amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after december 31, 2013. it really does seem straightforward. there is no ambiguity there. i would just ask the question, is there a list of laws that must be followed and those that may or may not be followed depending upon whatever the will of the president is that day. i would remind my colleagues, the words of abraham lincoln the best way to end a bad law is to enforce it strictly. we should do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may i inquire how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. 1/2 minutes to mr. clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time. mr. speaker we in this body are
called upon to represent the wishes of the american people. ast national election, president obama was re-elected by the american people by an overwhelming majority. and what we find today are the people who opposed his re-election, the people who for years now have been wishing upon him failure or attempting to do with this lawsuit what they could not do at the polling places. rather than address the problems of the american people, repairing our crumbling nfrastructure, getting affordability for our young people to attend colleges and universities and other
post-secondary education, here we are trying to find a way to upon which to eg hang an impeachment resolution. that's what this is all about. i would hope that we would hurry up and return dignity to this body and stop these charades that are inflaming the american people in a way they are undeserving of and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i have no additional speakers except myself and i would reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. slaughter: we are about to bring to a close this spectacle of legislative malpractice.
sad to see that we have arrived at this point of this legislative year where we are about to go home for five weeks. we should be here on the floor taking care of the very many issues that many people have talked about all day. most importantly, this lawsuit goes against everything that the majority has been working for for the last four years. they have tried over 50 times spending $79 million to repeal the affordable care act. obviously, americans -- not anyone listening to this is going to believe there is a great change of heart and so broken up that it wasn't implemented in time and by the book that you are going to try to sue the president of the united states. i don't think even kids watching
"sesame street" would make any sense. it comes from the majority's own party. it is sadly a partisan political election year stunt and has no place in this house. when i first came here the bipartisan was so wonderful and strong that the new york delegation, all of us, stood together on issues after issues. i miss that terribly and wish for it to come back. i urge my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. sessions: thank you very much. mr. speaker, our system of government's in a bad place when one branch of government is compeled to sue another branch of government for failing to play its proper constitutional role. we shouldn't be in that situation, but we are. the president should have fulfilled his oath to faithfully
execute the laws as written by congress and signed by this president. unfortunately, this lawsuit is necessary because the president has not implemented the law as passed and chose -- picked and chooseed how he would have the law affect the american citizens. this resolution will help guarantee the legislation passed by house of representatives and not according to the whim of one person, that being the president of the united states. also, no president should be allowed to pick and choose which laws matter and which ones do not. it's unfortunate some members of congress believe that this body should be irrelevant. it's unfortunate that they believe that any president should be able to enforce the law or not enforce the law as that president chooses. the american people elect their member of congress. they live under the laws that are written.
they make their plans and follow through based upon what the laws are and they live under these rule of laws and members of congress believe that laws that we pass no longer matter, they're going to say that their belief in the american system comes under question. when we allow the president to single handedly determine what the law is, the constitution, separation of powers and the american people become irrelevant. that is why the president's system of unilateral governance cannot stand. it must be stopped. and even if it takes a lawsuit to do so, that's what we think the federal judiciary is there to do, to resolve differences based upon the law. if the president's goal was to goat the house and defend the constution, he has succeeded when he said why not sue me.
our constitution should be defended and must be understood and guaranteed. this resolution is an important step in doing that. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. with that, i yield back. . >> the house went on to pass the resolution authorizing a lawsuit against president obama on a 225 -- 201 vote. except for five republicans who voted no, paul broun, scott garrett, walter jones, thomas massey, in steve stockman. today, washington journal is next. live with your phone calls. then, live coverage of the u.s. house. scheduled to work on a bill to add funds for border security. and 45 minutes we will discuss